--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, sandeep chatterjee <sandeep1960@...> wrote:
> Faithe: Taking these comments together...what I was
> conveying is that judging whether or not there is a "proper" path or
> "blindly" following a path matters not one bit.
> If matters not one
> bit......then either all paths are proper/correct or all paths are
> blind.....and the moving from one path to the other, or the dropping of all paths......is
> all part of the "mattering not one bit".
> Is it not?
Faithe: When I stated "matters not one bit", I was implying that it matters not one bit to another..
Is there an another?
There is just you.........and in that "you-ness".......these pixels like floating flotsam appear and disappear..
...seemingly suggesting a dialogue taking place, between two separated , distinctive objects, which themselves are appearing and disappearing pixels...
...just in a different domain.
.it is only pertinent to the one who is walking through life. I was also implying that no one has walked in another's shoes, and without that direct experience, no one knows the whole story or sees the who picture.
Walk in another shoes, and all you come to know is her shoe size and where it pinches.
You appear to believe dear Faithe that an experience is some sort of a criteria for a conclusion for reality...
...and that there is inter-alia intrinsic differences between one experience and the other.
The content, depth, melodrama of the
hoopla of the sleep dream of last night......may have been totally completely different to the one of the previous night....
..but in essence are the two hooplas ..... any different?
This awake dream hoopla in which these pixels are getting viewed right now..
..is not a whit different to the hoopla of the night frenzy.
> Faithe: Â Those
> (some who have offered guidance here) who follow the "guru" or
> "enlightened" person are prone to look at those out of the
> "club" as lacking something (physically or spiritually, no
> matter)...when in fact they have just chosen a certain path to follow, just
> different from others who may not even glance in their direction.
> Even if so.....that too is part of "mattering not one bit":-)
Faithe: The mattering not one bit applies to those in the "club" who think their opinions give them greater "insight" and thereby are more "special" than the one they perceive as walking "blindly".
It does not elevate either party...each is part of the mystery of life with no one having absolute answers/solutions.
So the "mattering not one bit" is selective.
Being admitted into the club or having to perennially keep waiting at the doorstop for admittance....
...or being rejected by THE CLUB....
.....why should it matter in the "mattering not one bit".....part of things?
> > ...then the masses
> should run.
> Faithe: Just being part of the "mass"
> connotates "not running" but "following". It is the
> individual who can run.
> Following, whether as a crawl or as a
> sprint, or in the domain of mentation or in the realm of the heart....are all
> forms of running.
Faithe: I disagree.
Agreement, disagreement, acceptance, rejection are about and in the realm of opinions.
Either there is a seeing, or there is not.
And no, that's not an
> Anyway what your previous Â previous comment appeared to suggest was that
> people should run AWAY from Gurus who appear to lead a miserable personal life.
> Hence you appeared to suggest that such was a criteria, in order to assess, judge and conclude on the Guru-ish-ness of the Guru.
Faithe: Back to this comment...it is up to the individual to follow or not follow a particular guru. If the guru is perceived to have a less than satisfactory physical life, then it would be in the persons best interests to find another that matches what they are seeking. There are some that seek a miserable physical life...so for them that guru may be perfect.
The fake seeker reaches the divine feet of the fake-Guru.
When the thirst is genuine, total......that very thirst invokes.....the quenching of the thirst.
But the quality of life being led or
seen to be leading........by the one in whose milieu...
... the quenching occurs(using some conventional terms for you Faithe) .
..has no bearing to or with anything.
> > Is that what you hold to be the criteria for concluding on the quality of
> ......let's say "enlightened bozoness"?
> Faithe: I hold no criteria for "enlightened
Â biological object named
> Jesusbiological object namedÂ biological object namedÂ biological
> object named
> Not doubt you would choose a business consultant who has at least made a
> million bucks using the spiel that he is offering you for your business
> strategies.....but here is a different ball game(so to say)
Faithe: No, that is not necessarily true, Sandeep. For instance, if I have the million bucks, then perhaps I am in need of a consultant that offers something quite different and in the difference, working together we each grow.
Yes that is the language and drivers of the market place.
Whether Wall Street or Spiritual Street.
> Because you cannot
> possible know what is not in within the boundaries of the known.
> All that you know, have known......(and experiences are just
> the same with some attached bells andÂ whistles)â€¦..are all modifications and
> projections of the known.
> That which-isâ€¦â€¦.neitherÂ in the realm of thought nor in the realm of
> thoughtless....cannot have a known criteria which it must meet.
> And since this "not meeting a known
> criteria" is itself a criteria........even this is not applicable.
> Since the
> biological object with a nameâ€¦...and irrespective of what is the bestowed labelâ€¦
> itself a mere thought of so......there is nothing as an
> The biological object named Jesus........an appearance in Christ....was/is not
> the Christ.
> The biological object named Lao Tzu.....an appearance in Tao.....was/is not the
> The biological object named Gautam......an appearance in Bodhi....was/is not
> So I know Faithe,
> the usual rejoinder would be....... how the hell do you Sandeep know .....in order
> to prattle all this crap:-)
Faithe: I do not question how you "know" in order to prattle the crap. I just don't accept what is offered above.
That's fine.(For the rest see above)
Personally, I have concluded that a lopsided balance between the physical & spiritual is not beneficial.
Indeed, in the market place...one must seek out that gimmickry that provides the promise of maximum benefit.
Is not the purpose of meditation...the merging of body, soul & mind.
That which has a purpose.....is modifications, amplifications...expansion of "Band Aids".
And thus back into the ambit of the market place.
Meditation happens(without the connotation of an occurrence in time)...
...when seen that "merging"(and thus the apriori assumption that there was a separation in the first place)........"body"...."soul"......"mind"....."lop-sided"( and thus it's counter part as perfect alignment)....
......these are all asset bubbles in the realm of ideation...
...in the ream of thought.
And that thought can never touch the state of meditativeness( to use a phrase)...
.....for such a state.....is not the thought of a state of meditativeness.
When the spiritual takes an inordinate amount of control, then rational thinking goes on the back burner and sadly the one who has allowed this condition to occur has given up the beautiful physical life with all its potential. When the physical takes control, then sadly everything becomes
"black/white" with the basic good that comes from spirituality totally stifled. Like the light of the day, and the dark of night...each is needed...an inordinate amount of either throws one into chaos.
What happens to this idea, so beautifully expressed.......when the object popularly known as Faithe......goes to sleep.
And is replaced with another set of ideas, thoughts, understandings of what is perfect alignment, what is not in the state of the sleep dream drama.
All of which also goes pooof......when the state of deep sleep takes over....which is a temporary abeyance of thought.
That which keeps appearing and going pooof..........no matter how undeniably real. it's content (while unfolding) can it be of any import?
Sure they have an use to drive a hard bargain in the market place,
whether in the awake-dream drama or the sleep-dream drama.
Piercing through all this poofing and puffing....
...one sees, one is .....that which is neither in thought.
Nor in the thoughtless.
> The biological conditioned object named Sandeepâ€¦â€¦â€¦an appearance â€¦..with no
> bestowed labelÂ
> AND leading a hell of a miserable personal life........knows
> And I know.
> And this
> knowingness ( to use aÂ hackneyedÂ term)..... needs no validation of
> itself ....... whether through an acceptance or agreement of an other or
Faithe: And for you, Sandeep, this fills some need. I can no more see where/why you have followed this path than you can understand the path I follow.
There has been no one who walked....... either there or here.
Just dancing pixels, in different gestalts of mediums.
> For it has no space .......to admit even an other, let alone an other's acceptance or agreement.
> Or even itself.......as knowingness.
Faithe: Again, the path follows becomes a trench ever deeper with more & more "knowingness" added, layer upon layer, cushioning one's beliefs.
> All I am saying is that no one is NOT on a path, planned
> or otherwise. We do, we path, we not do, we path...get the drift?
> Yes, no one is not on a path.
> Neither is any one .....on any path.
> Caught theÂ pheromonesÂ of the drift?
> Never mind:-)
Faithe: And the path continues on...to accept your premise, one must accept there is "no one and no one to do anything".
That's an oxymoron dear Faithe.
No, don't rush to the keyboard....
.....be the see.
That in its own right is a "path"...I am Faithe, label & all, physical body, my soul and "always my mind".
See how thought tries to protect...it's own investment ......in it's own creativity.
I love you Sandeep. I love the Sandeep that I do not understand as well as the Sandeep I do understand.
For the Sandeep that you understand and the Sandeep you do not understand...
..both are just nuances of you.
You that you truly are......which while includes the biological object known as Faithe(and all the objects which make up her world_.....
....while simultaneously .......is nothing of all that.
As far as Jesus, LaoTzu and all the "others"...meaningless to me. I MUCH, MUCH prefer all the comments, ideas & suggestions coming directly from the
members and not the repeated "truisms" written & shared in abundance. It is when the facade is lifted that the true beauty of each is allowed to shine. "There is a crack in everything".
There is a crack available only for pirated softwares.
Or for junkies.
I owe you a personal letter offline...it will come.
Always looking forward to one.:-)